Sri Lanka Cricket to Lift it's Ban on ICL Players

[GIMH]

International cricket's biggest threat is a split in cricket.

I'd rather a split in cricket than one board picked all of the teams

It is not like BCCI is holding a knife to the other boards' neck and dictating terms to them, BCCI has expressed clearly that it will not tolerate any domestic activity involving ICL, which it is entitled to, and as regards to international cricket, it has no authority to dictate selection stuff. Cricket Australia or Cricket New Zealand are perfectly entitled to select ICL players in their national squads, and there is little BCCI can do legally in that.

Now if the boards themselves cave in to BCCI's carrots and sticks, that denotes how pathetic those boards have become, and hence should cop maximum blame, if there is to be.

Agree with all of this. It's why no boards should cave into BCCI, they have no authority to do anything about it and nor should they.

 

[Langeveldt]

International cricket's biggest threat is a split in cricket.

Many of us would see it as a good thing

 

[zaremba]

The BCCI's attempts to influence other teams' selections are utterly inappropriate and any foreign Board that stands up to them should be applauded. The more Boards that do so, the weaker the BCCI's position will be. I can't begin to understand why some people - ok then, one person - on this site advocates capitulation, even to the extent of actively wishing that Counties should not pick ICL players. Completely bizarre.

 

[silentstriker]

Many of us would see it as a good thing

So you'd be happy with two tourneys, one of England-Australia-New Zealand, and the other with India-Pakistan-Sri Lanka-South-Africa? West Indies could go either way.

Would be completely boring for mine.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd rather a split in cricket than one board picked all of the teams

That's a bit of a sensationalist statement....

 

[GIMH]

It's no more sensationalist than your split in cricket scenario. If teams bow to the BCCI and say "yes sir, we won't pick any ICL players, three bags full sir," then what's next? BCCI could get pissed off by something else and make their stance clear on that, and what do the other boards do then?

If the Shane Bond thing had happened in Football, there would be serious repercussions for the boards involved. But it happens in Cricket, and people actually think the ends justify the means, because the ICL is nasty. Let me tell you, third party selection is as bad as matchfixing in my book, because it means it's not a level-playing field. And the fact that Shane Bond doesn't play for NZ, sure, it was officially NZC's (is NZC the name of the body, sorry if it's not) decision, but it was done under pressure because as you and Richard have said, there can be heavy financial consequences which are damaging to the smaller boards for pissing the BCCI off. This amounts to third party selection by proxy.

As an aside, if there was to be a split in cricket, well Sri Lanka wouldn't appear to be falling on India's side at the minute...

 

[silentstriker]

It's no more sensationalist than your split in cricket scenario. If teams bow to the BCCI and say "yes sir, we won't pick any ICL players, three bags full sir," then what's next? BCCI could get pissed off by something else and make their stance clear on that, and what do the other boards do then?

If the Shane Bond thing had happened in Football, there would be serious repercussions for the boards involved. But it happens in Cricket, and people actually think the ends justify the means, because the ICL is nasty. Let me tell you, third party selection is as bad as matchfixing in my book, because it means it's not a level-playing field. And the fact that Shane Bond doesn't play for NZ, sure, it was officially NZC's (is NZC the name of the body, sorry if it's not) decision, but it was done under pressure because as you and Richard have said, there can be heavy financial consequences which are damaging to the smaller boards for pissing the BCCI off. This amounts to third party selection by proxy.

What exactly is the solution then? Should the BCCI ignore that the other boards are helping to drain BCCI's money by fostering a rival competition within its own country, and continue to give those countries the best tour dates/matches?

As an aside, if there was to be a split in cricket, well Sri Lanka wouldn't appear to be falling on India's side at the minute...

Yes, they would. Sri Lanka know that every other country would high tail it out of there every time an exhaust pipe fires. There's not going to be a split of course under any circumstances that I could forsee, I don't believe that for a minute, but that is indeed the worst possible scenario. The solution is not to make the BCCI poorer (hence making everyone else poorer), but to make the finances more equitable. ICL ain't doing that, it's just going to suck the finances out of the global game. I want ICL to succeed because I hate the BCCI and I hope it dies a painful death, but you can't really ignore the implications on a wider scale if that happens.

 

[Precambrian]

The BCCI's attempts to influence other teams' selections are utterly inappropriate and any foreign Board that stands up to them should be applauded. The more Boards that do so, the weaker the BCCI's position will be. I can't begin to understand why some people - ok then, one person - on this site advocates capitulation, even to the extent of actively wishing that Counties should not pick ICL players. Completely bizarre.

Agree with you that no board, including BCCI should have a say in other boards' selection matters.

However i don't think SL's decision has got anything to do with 'interference' in selection matters. All one needs to do is to check up the names of those who took to ICL, all have retired or have no real chance of representing their national teams, ICL or not. So player leakage to the ICL should be the last thing SLC be worried about.

Unless, there has been 'behind the curtains' negotiations between AR and the ICL, and a Bangladesh-like situation could materialise. AR might want to preempt it.

One possible way out for the BCCI would be to create a Colombo centric IPL franchise, thereby appease the SLC. Roughly like Glamorgan from Wales.

 

[GIMH]

What exactly is the solution then? Should the BCCI ignore that the other boards are helping to drain BCCI's money by fostering a rival competition within its own country, and continue to give those countries the best tour dates/matches?

I think pasag said in an earlier thread, competition is good and generally brings the best out in a product itself. Without the ICL there would have been no IPL. Let them compete, people were much more enamoured with the IPL which attracted a global cricketing audience. The only ICL team I know of are the new one from Dhaka. To consider the ICL a threat just shows insecurity on the BCCI's part; they can easily blow the ICL away without resorting to trying to control international cricket. Quite frankly, I don't see why other boards should give a **** whether their players are playing in unauthorised competitions unless they wish for them to be resting or if these competitions pose higher risks of injury for any reason.

I want to see the ECB take the BCCI on this, I am dying for them to pick Chris Read just to piss the BCCI off. Let's see them stop England from touring, and refuse to tour here, see how that works for them, I'm sure that would be a great idea.

Yes, they would. Sri Lanka know that every other country would high tail it out of there every time an exhaust pipe fires.

If there is an ICL-based split in cricket, it would appear to be Sri Lanka at the forefront of it.

 

[Precambrian]

Another point is that ICL is a profit oriented private venture, operating wholly under it's own sets of laws, and is accountable to absolutely none except S Chandra. What if in the future, assuming it is given all the 'freedom' to grow, it flatly refuses one of the international players to be released for international duty? Whom will then the international team approach?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, so boards just have to make sure their players get release clauses in their contracts...if they don't, then they're dumb

 

[silentstriker]

they can easily blow the ICL away without resorting to trying to control international cricket.

But they can't, as these new developments have shown rather apparently. So in the meantime, BCCI should just say 'well, they're losing money and our partner boards are actively participating in it', but we'll just let it roll off our back?

 

[Sanz]

But they can't, as these new developments have shown rather apparently. So in the meantime, BCCI should just say 'well, they're losing money and our partner boards are actively participating in it', but we'll just let it roll off our back?

BCCI has used all its might and it has not been able to crush ICL, infact if anything, ICL has gotten biger and slightly better in terms of profit/loss for Zee. If one believes the reports, it seems that they commercial spots for the upcoming ICL series are selling for 200% more than they did last year. It may be nothing in comparison to IPL, but more than enough indication that ICL is here to stay or atleast not going down without a decent fight.

And one would assume that it must have given some hint to some people and made them realize that Nazism is not the best way to deal with the current situation.

 

[GIMH]

But they can't, as these new developments have shown rather apparently. So in the meantime, BCCI should just say 'well, they're losing money and our partner boards are actively participating in it', but we'll just let it roll off our back?

Okay, so I was wrong about them being able to kill the ICL, perhaps. I do believe that the BCCI have given the ICL more publicity through its ridiculous stance than the ICL could possibly have done itself.

Regardless of this, I would love for someone to explain to me why the status quo should always exist and never be challenged? Why should everybody accept, "well they control cricket and we can't set up our own competition" it conflicts hugely with my capitalist beliefs itbt.

 

[silentstriker]

I do believe that the BCCI have given the ICL more publicity through its ridiculous stance than the ICL could possibly have done itself.

Overseas perhaps. In India, where this matters, the owner of the biggest channel in India can generate enough publicity for himself.

Regardless of this, I would love for someone to explain to me why the status quo should always exist and never be challenged? Why should everybody accept, "well they control cricket and we can't set up our own competition" it conflicts hugely with my capitalist beliefs itbt.

Capitalism works both ways. It's also capitalism to sever ties (or cut them back) with supposed partners who allow a competitor to rise against you.

 

[GIMH]

As I said earlier, let the BCCI do that then, see how that goes

 

[zaremba]

Capitalism works both ways. It's also capitalism to sever ties (or cut them back) with supposed partners who allow a competitor to rise against you.

Silenstriker I would (with great respect) disagree with you.

To succeed, a capitalist system has to have laws that prohibit anti-competitive and restrictive trade practices. The free market doesn't mean anything goes; on the contrary, active steps need to be taken to protect the freedom of the market.

Perhaps it's time that someone challenged the lawfulness of the BCCI's actions.

 

[Precambrian]

Free markets also mean that only 'identical' products compete. You cannot offer a grossly inferior product and then claim protection for it.

 

[zaremba]

Free markets also mean that only 'identical' products compete. You cannot offer a grossly inferior product and then claim protection for it.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your logic in so many ways that I don't really know where to start.

- It's just not true that only identical products compete.
- And who's to judge what's a "grossly inferior product"?
- And if (for example) the ICL is so grossly inferior to the IPL, why does the BCCI spend so much time and energy trying to wipe it out?
etc etc etc

 

[Richard]

I think pasag said in an earlier thread, competition is good and generally brings the best out in a product itself. Without the ICL there would have been no IPL.

That's simply not true. Even if you accept what Gelman says about the IPL being based on the ICL and being brought about as a direct result of it, which I don't for a minute, I don't think that could be organised in the space of a month or two, Graeme Wright talked about the idea something like the IPL and Champions League in cricket the best part of a decade ago, before 20-over cricket was even dubbed Twenty20 and played at A-list level. It was always going to happen; Zee just got there a tiny while before any cricket boards did.